sariray -“for example comparing a population of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. It’s the study we’re all waiting for. They won’t do it because it’s “unethical” to deprive children of vaccines. I’m sure we can find volunteers”

All they have to do is get the Anti-vaxxers to volunteer to be part of the study. It’s unethical to force people who want the vax to be part of the study. So about you & your friends volunteer for this type of study?!?

I was just talking about vaccines with a friend, and a woman overheard us and joined in the conversation. She told us that after her 11 month old went through a round of vaccines, he shut down to the world. He stopped being a happy active baby. He started sitting there, flailing his arms, not engaging with his family. The doctor denied that it had any connection to vaccines, the doctor claimed the timing was coincidental. The injury was not reported.
A tiny fraction of vaccine injuries are reported. A nurse in NYU told me that she only found out vaccine injury existed after many years working in the hospital and administering vaccines. She never knew she is supposed to look for it, or inform parents that vaccines have side effects. There is no informed consent for vaccines, medical professionals are not taught to report them, they are taught that “it’s coincidental” when a child exhibits mental/emotional issues after vaccines.
People who have reported injuries, had to spend years in court, for the unlikely possibility of receiving any reimbursement for the tremendous expenses of raising a sick child. Most people can’t afford to win this case. Therefore a tiny fraction of vaccine injury claims are confirmed by vaccine courts.

sariray -“The people with the millions and billions pay scientists to run the study exactly how they want, to prove exactly what they want. The end.”

Another Lie! Dr. Stanley Plotkin wanted to tesify about vaccines, but the Israeli Lawyer from the other side, deposed him & then he refused to be a witness.
Actually the researchers only get Big Bucks when they make a discovery!

Makes a whole lot more sense than the silly conspiracy theory you buy into, in fact that would be almost impossible to pull off, the more people involved, means its harder to pull off, these many people, extremely unlikely, more like impossible to pull off.

In the 1970s and 1980s, a controversy erupted related to the question of whether the whole-cell pertussis component caused permanent brain injury in rare cases, called pertussis vaccine encephalopathy.[3] No studies showed a causal connection, and later studies showed no connection of any type between the DPT vaccine and permanent brain injury. The alleged vaccine-induced brain damage proved to be an unrelated condition, infantile epilepsy.[4] In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association called the connection a “myth” and “nonsense”.[5] However, before that point, criticism of the studies showing no connection and a few well-publicized anecdotal reports of permanent disability that were blamed on the DPT vaccine gave rise to 1970s anti-DPT movements.[6][7] In the United States, low profit margins and an increase in vaccine-related lawsuits led many manufacturers to stop producing the DPT vaccine by the early 1980s.[3] By 1985, vaccine manufacturers had difficulty obtaining liability insurance.[8] The price of DPT vaccine skyrocketed, leading providers to curtail purchases, limiting availability. Only one company was still manufacturing pertussis vaccine in the US by the end of 1985.[8] In 1986, to correct the situation, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), which established a federal no-fault system to compensate victims of injury caused by mandated vaccines.[9][10]

@meno Yes it’s a coincidence. Children unfortunately suffer neurological and mental disorders all the time. The fact that once or twice it happened soon after vaccination is meaningless. You have to show that out of a random population of children affected by a disorder, it happens most often immediately after vaccination. Then you need a control group of unvaccinated kids and show that they are healthier. Similar studies have been done and the conclusions show no difference.

Then your beliefs are wrong. That claim was publicized by a fellow named Andrew Wakefield, the same Andrew Wakefield who invented the claim that vaccines cause autism and lost his medical license after he falsified data trying to prove it. The CDC has done other studies and re-examined the data of the study in question and came to the same conclusion.

We can keep playing Wack-A-Mole with data, claims, anecdotes, all day long, but you can be rest assured that for everything you bring up that seems to imply that vaccinations are dangerous there is a rock-solid scientific reason why that is not so.

Do you know how I know that you are biased and that vaccination is the right way to go, no questions asked? Because of how you argue. It’s always the same. First there’s a claim from one shady place about the dangers of immunization. That’s proven to not only be false, but completely bogus. Then there’s another claim from another place with a similar rebuttal. Then a third, then a fourth. At a certain point an unbiased debater will say “Well if so much of what I believe is based on narischkeit, maybe I should re-examine it” But not anti-vaxxers. You will keep pulling more and more absurd and out-of-context “evidence” to push your agenda no matter how many times it’s proven false.

And then there’s the tiny amounts of “evidence” required to cement your beliefs versus the mountains of evidence you require to contradict them. A falsified study, a claim by a website, a letter by a Rov, an anecdote by a random person, good enough to say vaccines are bad! But to say they are good, you require notarized letters from every doctor, researcher, and Gadol in history!

You write, go look up the story about Hannah Poling, yet you write your own version of the events.

Its a pretty straightforward story, Hannah was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit, the timing of the diagnosis was in line with the normal age of diagnosis.

Yet the family decided on litigating the vaccine companies, they ended up with a settlement without going through a hearing, this is the government and the family agreeing to settle this and not go to a full hearing.

In fact, it has been proven that Hannah had a defect, this had nothing to do with vaccines.

Please read the vaccine insert. Encephalitis is one of adverse reactions to vaccines, and after that the child can leave lasting effects on the brain. CDC has been caught with falsifying data, and not only regarding vaccines.
No, not everyone reacts to vaccines because different people can detox better than others. One of the common factors in this is MTHFR gene mutation.
“Another point, the immediate death or seizures is nonsense, the immune system does not immediately react.” all these reactions did happen within days, not immediately.
Doctors and cps, etc just follow protocol, and if they don’t they loose their job. Most people in all such positions never question protocol. Example of this is obstetricians who never questioned for years putting laboring woman on her back and stirrups. We already know this causes major complications, and a great amount of unnecessary hellish pain, but that’s what they saw in medical school, so that’s what they do. Doctors just repeat what they were taught. Through out history, the rare case where doctor discovered something contrary to belief of medical world, he was ostracized and called crazy.

@meno If it happened to YOU chv”sh would you keep saying there is no evidence?

Would you look in the eyes of a mother telling this story and tell her “science doesn’t support your account”

Once you go down the rabbit hole, there is plenty of evidence.
But regardless, lack of science does not negate reality. When reality does not match “science” it means there is something off with the way the experiment was conducted. It does not mean that REALITY does not exist.

As noted, the ‘alternative’ world has a lot to gain from spreading false claims and scaring people into buying their services.

Otherwise, why are you bringing up OB doctors, the lithotomy position has been practiced for a very long time and is the most accepted approach for many reasons, there is not much data to recommend any other position, there are other positions that are used for certain situation.

With regards to encephalitis, not sure if this is in response to the Hannah Poling story, encephalitis and encephalopathy are not the same.

So now its that people ‘detox’ from vaccines, what toxins are you referring to, and what people have not been able to ‘detox’?

All of this is based on assumptions, including the assumption that doctors just have booklets that guide them on step by step, same is with the police and CPS, they have it in their protocol to omit any reference to vaccines associated with killing the SIDS babys.

At least understand why the vast majority refuse to play along with this theory of yours.

“I know exactly how science works . The people with the millions and billions pay scientists to run the study exactly how they want, to prove exactly what they want. The end.”

Obviously you don’t know how science works.
If this were true, then how do you explain that a majority of experimental drugs do not pass clinical trials? Millions are spent on developing drugs that end up not working the way they were expected/hoped to have worked. oh, I know, you’ll say that it must be that the scientists conducting these studies weren’t paid enough.

I am commenting here to help guide people who have an open mind, not people who can’t comprehend the possibility that doctors could be wrong. To keep repeating that the parents are wrong because their experience does not correlate to what the pharmaceutical companies and the government advertise is not a good argument. I brought in the birthing position example, because that is something that is right now changing in the US, something no midwifes use, and something that is not practiced in other other countries where birth statistics are much better. This was to help open your mind that many accepted medical practices are extremely harmful. There are countless examples of this in history. The way vaccine trials are conducted has many flaws, and the data released to the public is not complete. There are many books and documentaries on the subject, and I cannot attempt to write it all here, but all the science behind non-vaccinating is there. I personally would rather risk measles, because there is a lot I can do to prevent complications, and help manage this disease. There is no telling how my children will react to vaccines, and there are no studies on long term effects of vaccination on human health. There is not much to do to reverse effects of vaccines. Everyone can weigh the risks and benefits for their own family. To force one size fits all medical protocol on the entire nation, and to bully people who do not comply is not something that should be happening in a free society. Medical practices are constantly changing, and they differ greatly from country to country. To say that no one has the right to disagree with what is happening right now in this country is dictatorship, and all the people who are bullying those that don’t comply with every new regulation coming out each year are just useful idiots for the power giants in charge of all this,

Protocols are based on evidence, hence the term evidence-based medicine. Unlike twisted anecdotal evidence that cannot be replicated, If you consider being open-minded when people fall for scare tactics spread by people that have nothing on what to base their scare tactics, this is actually called fear mongering and misinformation.

furthermore, as I have mentioned multiple times, the doctors and other providers have no monetary gain to follow the latest recommendations and evidence. The ‘alternative’ movement which defies evidence based medicine, has based its entire marketing and business module based on scaring people with made up garbage claims.

Twisting anything that seems on the surface as if it furthers their cause, regardless if the true facts point to the direction they want or not, is not called being open-minded. In fact, this is the way a lot of people view this, the scientific community bases everything based on scientific evidence, regardless of what the results show, even if it means admitting that what they thought all along, was not fully accurate.

On the other hand, the alternative movement is hanging on to their beliefs, now they just have to find facts that support their belief, as each ‘fact’ gets uncovered and shows other than what they stand for, they move on to the next twisted fact. Yet the bottom line is, regardless of the scientific evidence the end result must always be that the medical community is wrong and that they are right.

This is the opposite of being open-minded, this is fraudulent and dishonest. completely inappropriate to be advising people and scare them into their belief.

Let me throw another wrench into this discussion. In today’s world, we live with guidance of science. the medical field has plenty of it. There is an”alternative” world, where there are beliefs that there are other ways to understand anatomy and physiology, and there are other approaches to take for health and medical care. The reality remains that the scientific world wins all the time, and the findings that are substantiated by scientific study are recognized as fact, and public policy is designed around this. The alternative world is ignored.

But there are other ways to market. There is word of mouth, there are scare tactics, and there are means of communicating with average people which includes internet these days. Inasmuch as we are dealing with an issue that is cast in the light of death and terrible, lifelong diseases, the tendency is to listen to these remote risks in defiance of good science. After all, if there is a 1% risk of harm, one would not take a chance.

But we are now discussing a far more serious issue. There is an entire camp of those who believe in “snake oil”, pseudo-therapies, and the like. With little to nothing to claim as scientific support, there is only one way to survive. One must claim that the studies were flawed, bought by big pharm, with fabricated evidence, etc. I suppose it is not impossible to falsify findings. I conducted research myself some years ago. I did not falsify anything or modify anything. But I do think it would have been possible. However, in big industries and with government involvement, this is highly unlikely. Most studies get replicated, and under different auspices in different locations. So the attack on the studies is not high on believability.

The attacks on science here are foolish. What the alternative movement needs to do is conduct their own studies to prove their positions. Not cry over scientific study that yielded findings that contradict their positions.

“furthermore, as I have mentioned multiple times, the doctors and other providers have no monetary gain to follow the latest recommendations and evidence. ”
Doctors are FORCED to follow protocol or risk losing their license and being sued.
If a doctor follows protocol and the patient dies or is injured, the doctor is immune from prosecution.
If a doctor refuses to do vaccines he/she WILL lose his/her medical license. So doctors are NOT FREE to
do what they think is best for the patient but must FOLLOW ORDERS.

My kids are all vaccinated but I know people who choose not to. I used to think they were crazy and would argue with them about how negligent they were. Until I listened, and i researched…. And I see now that all “provax” is basically based on following Drs (aka “the experts”) and majority. The so called anti vax are really all just ex vaxxers who want safer vaccines. They are not murderers or dumb people. They are actually quite intelligent and knowledgeable. Many are actually real MDs who know how to read science. As much as I hate to admit this, the science against vaccines is way more solid than the provax science. The provax is a lot of headlines and fear mongering with little science to back up their claims. For example, the claim for dtap to protect babies from pertussis. The claim: if everyone in contact with baby gets dtap then it’ll protect baby until baby can get vaxxed. Actual science? Shows that dtap doesnt protect against exposure AT ALL. All it does is lessen or remove symptoms of the actual vaccinee. So, grandma or babysitter or even pediatrician who had dtap, may have asymptomatic pertussis right now while holding your baby but is just as contagious as if they were coughing up a storm. Only difference is, they dont know it! And thats why scientists think there is a rise in pertussis today. Theres No science on the other side that disproves this.. This is legit published study done recently on baboons. Just headlines and fear. No science. And so the saga goes with many vaccine topics.
So, just sayin…. To all those yelling and screaming, there is alot to know on the other side to understand it fairly. If U havent researched the other side (dissolving illusions by Dr Humpries, MD, Neil Millers review of critical vaccine studies..) Then there is no discussion.

Continued:
Another example of headline vs science..
CDC claims that mercury in vaccines dont cause autism and that they removed it just out of extreme caution. Once removed, the autism rate kept climbing so the theory is that mercury couldnt be causing it.
Science: the cdc actually did do a study (verstraeten, 2000) that showed that infants exposed to mercury vaccines were twice as likely to develop a speech disorder, 5x more likely to,develop a sleep disorder, and 7.6x more likely to develop autism. Well… They never published that study so Drs dont see it unless they look for it. Why didn’t autism rates go down after they removed it? 1. Thats when they started recommending mercury containing flu shots to pregnant women and children 2. Mercury wasnt completely removed from all vaccines. Most still use it in the production of ingredients so its still in there in trace amounts which is still highly neurotoxin, 3. There is increased aluminum in the vaccine schedule which is similarly neurotoxin to mercury.
In General, Drs will tell u that ethyl mercury in vaccines is not toxic, and methyl mercury that we eat in fish etc is much worse for us and thats totally fine. Science? Not one study, i repeat, NOT ONE study showing that ethyl mercury injected is safe! So how do Drs make that claim? CDC said so. Robert Kennedy even pledged 100k to anyone who can find a safety study regarding injected ethyl mercury. Nothing. Nada. But there are over 100 published studies showing their dangers, and around 20 linking it directly to autism. Real studies, real scientists.
So so many of these examples of unsubstantiated claims vs solid science.
Trust me, i was once one of those. I even had a talk with my pediatrician to prove to those antivaxxers that drs really do know all this and they know the studies etc. Heres how some of the conversation went:
Me: how do u know vaccines are safe?
Dr: vaccines are very safe….20 minute drasha about how they are always making them safer and improving them….
Me: but what abt the ingredients? You’re not concerned abt whats in there? Like aluminum…
Dr: aluminum?? They wouldnt put that in vaccines. (Goes to Google and checks). Hmmm, Actually there is aluminum in there…. (Looks a bit confused. I’m getting nervous now)
Me: what do say about Dr William Thompson from cdc recently saying that their huge 2004 study disproving a link bet mmr and autism was fraudulent as they DID find a link amd were told to cut out anything in the study that showed the link. Dt T kept a copy of the original study and has asked Congress to subppena him but nothing happened yet…
Dr: I never heard of that. Its probably fake news. I would have heard of that if it really happened. We get emails like this all the time if there was a concern…
Me: but it did happen.. I watched the hearing online…
On and on….
I left really nervous that drs possibly arent told all the vaccine truths, and researched on my own.
Research doesnt Wikipedia, Google or the like. It means hearing from board certified MDs what the real studies and real scientists have to say. Unbelievable! I’m not suggesting that anyone stop vaccinating. Just understand where the other side is coming from. Really not pashut

I’m not going to refute all of your points, but I’m certain they aren’t any more logical than the fake fear mongering Wakefield invented to start the modern scare. So let me pick on the most obvious one:

At no point in any time in history did any vaccine contain mercury.

It’s a misconception based on misunderstanding of chemistry. Vaccines used to contain thimerison which is an organomercury compound. It’s related to the mercury you find in old thermometers in the same way in which highly flammable hydrogen gas is related to water (H2O). The reason it was removed was because of fear mongering by people like Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy.

Antivaxxers suppress anecdotes about the positive side effects of vaccines. A relative of mine was having trouble adjusting to a new school, but a few days after the second MMR dose, started making friends and getting along in class better.

Mindful: There is not much to do to reverse effects of vaccines.
Depending on the severity of symptoms, there is a lot people can do to heal from vaccines. Chelation (heavy metal detox) is one of them.
Although it’s not easy , I have heard of healing from vaccines.

Health: truthishidden – So what was written on the death certificate? I highly doubt it was the actual virus.

truthishidden: Health: probably SIDS, it was probably only confirmed as a death from a vaccine long after the death certificate was done.

Me: “Confirmed”?! What confirmed, how confirmed? Here lies one of the biggest lies of the anti-vaxxers, the idea that incidents in the VAERS have been confirmed, that if it says 20 deaths were reported after vaccination it means someone has somehow verified that those deaths had some connection to the vaccine. That is absolutely false. VAERS is simply a list of reports. Some yukel with an agenda reports that a child was vaccinated, and a month later died. It goes in the list. Many reports do not come from doctors or nurses, but from parents or even from lawyers who are preparing to sue, so they want to be able to cite the report that they themselves made! There is no verification, no checking, whatever anyone sends in is likely to remain there forever.

“When a one year old gets ill immediately after an MMR and a week later is diagnosed with kidney failure, doctor says coincidental. When a five year old gets some overdue vaccines and stops talking and eventually is diagnosed with autism, conincidence.”

Yes, that is exactly what it is. What possible reason could you have for doubting it?

” I know both of those people. And both of their parents say it occurred because of the vaccine. ”

I DON’T CARE what the parents say. How the **** would they know? What makes their <i>wild guess</i> better than anyone else’s? See, this is exactly why nobody should take you seriously. Because you’re the kind of illogical person who thinks having a sick child gives a person some kind of psychic power to know what caused the child’s illness. Unless they’re also doctors, parents know <i>nothing</i>. They have no way of knowing anything.

Another of your lies is that we have illnesses now that never existed before. Garbage. Every single illness we deal with now has existed for thousands of years. You’re like those people who think there was no cancer 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago. There absolutely was. And there were allergies, and autism, and adhd, and whatever else you worry about.

Yserbius123-
Fact: vaccines definitely did contain and do contain mercury. Yes its in the form of thimerisol which is 50% mercury but difference does that make as to the exact chemistry name of it? And like I wrote in the previous post, the studies were done to prove their harm. Even by our very own cdc. So based on what evidence do u say that its not harmful? If u find that out, I could win that 100k.
Andy Wakefield was not a fear mongerer. He was the top pediatric GI at the time in the UK and did a study to test a correlation between autism and IBD, essentially a gut-brain connection, which he did find. He did mention in the study thatthe mothers stated that the onset of their childs symptoms began after the MMR and so he recommends that we get the single shots until more research is done. And BOOM he got slammed and smeared for daring to question the vaccines. No, he didnt falsify data. His study was sound, as was his other 150 some papers he had published beforehand. He had 12 other brilliant Drs/scientists peer review this study and come to the same conclusion about the gut brain connection. UC Davis just recently redid his study and came to the exact same conclusion. Once again, solid study. Only reason he lost his license was for failure to obtain permission from the ethics committee to draw blood from normal children to use as a comparison. He didnt Really have to given the nature of this study but they argued he should have. Keep in mind, there was never a proper court case here. This was just the general medical counsel rulings. Subsequently, much corruption has been dug up on this case given the ties that brian deer had with the pharmaceutical companies at the time, amd given the fact that the government was currentlu being sued by over 5,000 families for mmr injuries and Desparately needed this possible connection to go away quickly. Also important to note, that professor John W Smith who worked on the study alongside Andy and lost his license for the same reason, recently tried his case in a real court and was reinstated. The judge called the GMC out on this terrible ruling. Once again, a headline (fraud Dr license revoked…) Vs Real facts!
Thats what I’m trying to,say folks. This can go on all day. U need to research if u want to truly understand. Stop quoting headlines and Wikipedia and learn the real facts please. U can still continue to vaccinate like I do (although on a safer schedule). But at least u will understand your neighbor/relative\friend… Who doesn’t.

Below is from the BMJ, this is why the rest of the world does not buy into your fear mongering, we want what is best for our children and refuse to accept garbage science and fraud.

Authored by Andrew Wakefield and 12 others, the paper’s scientific limitations were clear when it appeared in 1998.2 3 As the ensuing vaccine scare took off, critics quickly pointed out that the paper was a small case series with no controls, linked three common conditions, and relied on parental recall and beliefs.4 Over the following decade, epidemiological studies consistently found no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.5 6 7 8 By the time the paper was finally retracted 12 years later,9 after forensic dissection at the General Medical Council’s (GMC) longest ever fitness to practise hearing,10 few people could deny that it was fatally flawed both scientifically and ethically. But it has taken the diligent scepticism of one man, standing outside medicine and science, to show that the paper was in fact an elaborate fraud.

In a series of articles starting this week, and seven years after first looking into the MMR scare, journalist Brian Deer now shows the extent of Wakefield’s fraud and how it was perpetrated (doi:10.1136/bmj.c5347). Drawing on interviews, documents, and data made public at the GMC hearings, Deer shows how Wakefield altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories in order to support his claim to have identified a new syndrome; how his institution, the Royal Free Hospital and Medical School in London, supported him as he sought to exploit the ensuing MMR scare for financial gain; and how key players failed to investigate thoroughly in the public interest when Deer first raised his concerns.11

Deer published his first investigation into Wakefield’s paper in 2004.12 This uncovered the possibility of research fraud, unethical treatment of children, and Wakefield’s conflict of interest through his involvement with a lawsuit against manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. Building on these findings, the GMC launched its own proceedings that focused on whether the research was ethical. But while the disciplinary panel was examining the children’s medical records in public, Deer compared them with what was published in the Lancet. His focus was now on whether the research was true.

The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.13 Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross. Moreover, although the scale of the GMC’s 217 day hearing precluded additional charges focused directly on the fraud, the panel found him guilty of dishonesty concerning the study’s admissions criteria, its funding by the Legal Aid Board, and his statements about it afterwards.14

Furthermore, Wakefield has been given ample opportunity either to replicate the paper’s findings, or to say he was mistaken. He has declined to do either. He refused to join 10 of his coauthors in retracting the paper’s interpretation in 2004,15 and has repeatedly denied doing anything wrong at all. Instead, although now disgraced and stripped of his clinical and academic credentials, he continues to push his views.16

Meanwhile the damage to public health continues, fuelled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals, and the medical profession.17 18 Although vaccination rates in the United Kingdom have recovered slightly from their 80% low in 2003-4,19 they are still below the 95% level recommended by the World Health Organization to ensure herd immunity. In 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in England and Wales.20 Hundreds of thousands of children in the UK are currently unprotected as a result of the scare, and the battle to restore parents’ trust in the vaccine is ongoing.

Any effect of the scare on the incidence of mumps remains in question. In epidemics in the UK, the US, and the Netherlands, peak prevalence was in 18-24 year olds, of whom 70-88% had been immunised with at least one dose of the MMR vaccine.21 22 Any consequence of a fall in uptake after 1998 may not become apparent until the cohorts of children affected reach adolescence. One clue comes from an outbreak in a school in Essen, Germany, attended by children whose parents were opposed to vaccinations. Of the 71 children infected with mumps, 68 had not been immunised.23

But perhaps as important as the scare’s effect on infectious disease is the energy, emotion, and money that have been diverted away from efforts to understand the real causes of autism and how to help children and families who live with it.24

There are hard lessons for many in this highly damaging saga. Firstly, for the coauthors. The GMC panel was clear that it was Wakefield alone who wrote the final version of the paper. His coauthors seem to have been unaware of what he was doing under the cover of their names and reputations. As the GMC panel heard, they did not even know which child was which in the paper’s patient anonymised text and tables. However, this does not absolve them. Although only two (John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch) were charged by the GMC, and only one, the paper’s senior author Walker-Smith, was found guilty of misconduct, they all failed in their duties as authors. The satisfaction of adding to one’s CV must never detract from the responsibility to ensure that one has been neither party to nor duped by a fraud. This means that coauthors will have to check the source data of studies more thoroughly than many do at present—or alternatively describe in a contributor’s statement precisely which bits of the source data they take responsibility for.

Secondly, research ethics committees should not only scrutinise proposals but have systems to check that what is done is what was permitted (with an audit trail for any changes) and work to a governance procedure that can impose sanctions where an eventual publication proves this was not the case. Finally, there are lessons for the Royal Free Hospital, the Lancet, and the wider scientific community. These will be considered in forthcoming articles.

What of Wakefield’s other publications? In light of this new information their veracity must be questioned. Past experience tells us that research misconduct is rarely isolated behaviour.25 Over the years, the BMJ and its sister journals Gut and Archives of Disease in Childhood have published a number of articles, including letters and abstracts, by Wakefield and colleagues. We have written to the vice provost of UCL, John Tooke, who now has responsibility for Wakefield’s former institution, to ask for an investigation into all of his work to decide whether any more papers should be retracted.

The Lancet paper has of course been retracted, but for far narrower misconduct than is now apparent. The retraction statement cites the GMC’s findings that the patients were not consecutively referred and the study did not have ethical approval, leaving the door open for those who want to continue to believe that the science, flawed though it always was, still stands. We hope that declaring the paper a fraud will close that door for good

Illogical mom, stop with the lying. Wakefield is one of the biggest resho’im in history. He made up his data, invented them from scratch. And he did it to create a nice living for himself as an “expert witness” when parents would sue vaccine makers.

You are wrong about Wakefield. He did some serious ethical breaches to produce the data that was used in his infamous study. It was enough of an issue that he lost his license. Not because “they” didn’t want the truth to come out. Initially he had the support of many members of the medical community, but when it became clear that he was untrustworthy, a fear-monger, and an attention addict, everyone backed down including his 11 collaborators. Doctors later expressed surprise that the study even passed peer review since the data shown in the paper didn’t even support the conclusions and there were some serious doubts if the data itself was correct.

Not to mention that it spurned numerous other studies that showed absolutely no link between GI diseases and the MMR vaccine. Why fixate on a retracted study when there are many more that show no correlation between vaccines and autism?

“Immunizations and Autism: A Review of the Literature” (2006) Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. Doja and Roberts

. Yes its in the form of thimerisol which is 50% mercury but difference does that make as to the exact chemistry name of it?

What difference does it make? All the difference in the world! Salt is a molecule made up of one sodium atom and one chloride atom. Sodium is an incredibly destructive chemical that can cause fires just by touching water. Chloride is literally poison. But table salt is perfectly safe. Same with thimerisol. It’s not “50% mercury”, it’s organic molecule has a mercury atom in it.

2cents
I didn’t say MMR contains aluminum. Its 2 Sep issues. Mmr can cause autism and so can aluminum in other vaccines. This is from published studies. Not my own hypotheses. Thompson is not fake news. No one even denies it. The CDC doesnt deny it. They promoted him and he’s quiet now. Still works there. Watch the Congressional hearing. All real.

Regarding Proffesor Walker Smith, as usual grab whatever you can to support the theory, regardless if it is true or not.

The case was only if the Proffesor acted in good faith and How he treated his patients, the judge cane to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence to support that the Proffesor knowingly did something wrong. And just like tye other co authors who retracted when they realized they were duped he should have also not lost his license.

2cents
I don’t know why u keep referring to “proven fraudalent study”. Nothing was ever proven fraudulent about his study! Not in Any court…ever! He lost his license forr thr medical misconduct I mentioned above, not because of fraud in his actual findings. The others retracted but never said why. We can assume they were either bribed or threatened and didnt wany to be “wakefielded” next. Remember that those involved in incriminating Wakefield had ties to pharma.

Its also helpful to know that educated vaxxers dont base their entire belief on Wakefield (or Jenny McCarthy for that matter), although providers think this. We are educated by science and real data. We listen to Drs who know all the facts. Some of them include Dr Suzanne Humphries, Dr Sherri Tempenney, Dr Toni Bark… And scientists such as Dr Yehuda Scoenfeld, Dr Chris Exley, Dr Chistopher Shaw, Dr Gerardi, Dr Theresa Deitcher… These scientists are not anti or pro vaccine. They are pro science and that’s it. They are the ones working in the labs with aluminum or fetal stem cells and they know what they see happen to to brains or cells when these objects are injected etc. They have published their findings on these matters and the fact that they relate to vaccines is a side note. They are simply experts in their respective fields. Thats what science is.

@LogicalMom So you’re admitting you were wrong about Wakefield and thimerisol. Just to clarify.

You are under the mistaken impression that there’s some sort of debate. There isn’t. There are maybe a few dozen medical doctors in the US who believe that there’s a debate and probably less than 5 who are anti-vaccine (Dr. Humphries is the most well known, and she honestly believes that polio and smallpox vaccines were meaningless). There’s simply no question that the benefits of immunization far outweigh the potential damages.

Look at what people like you have done in Eretz Yisroel and Monsey! Children are literally dying from measles! Don’t tell me things would have been worse and more people would be sick if they all vaccinated.

Courts do NOT decide if this is fraudulent or not, in fact courts use the data and studies that are published to arrive at a conclusion, the people sitting on the bench (judges) are not trained in conducting scientific research.

I am sure you knew all of this, yet you still decided to make this statement, because it makes you sound intelligent, you are just coming across as screwed up and willing to further the agenda regardless of the facts that are available to all.

truthishidden
Participant
“2scents: Just because you call it fake news, doesn’t make it so”

Of course not, it is not me that decides what is fake news. It is the misrepresentation and twisting of the facts that does, I have already written about William Thomson earlier in this thread. There would be no point in discussing this once again unless you have something to add.

However, the fact that this is being brought up as if there was a cover-up by the CDC just shows that the conspiracy theory is not based on the facts, rather the facts have to be created to support this conspiracy.

If you would have read what William Thomson said, you would understand that not only does this not support the notion that there was a ‘cover-up’, in fact it supports the fact that has been proven thus far, there is no relationship between the MMR and autism.

Have you actually taken the time to read the study, or are you just posting whatever seems to support your cause even though it does not?

This actually SUPPORTS what we already know! that out of 88 Individuals that have contracted the Measles virus, only Two were vaccinated. (hmm, 2.2% I am sure that this is just a coincidence.. if vaccines are ineffective, how else would you explain that?)

In fact, 231 other individuals that were vaccinated and came in contact with the virus have not gotten the virus. (2/231 is below the acceptable percentage, there is an acceptable 95-97% immunity)

Does this support that vaccines does not work? No, it supports that it actually DOES work.

Can we now cross this myth off your list, vaccines do work and as you posted, there is data to support that.

“2. An outbreak of measles occurred in a municipal school system which had reported 98% of students immunized against measles.
Hull HF, et al. Pediatrics. 1985.”

Have you read the study, if yes why is it relevant?

The school had a “reported” 98% immunization, yet the reports were inaccurate. in fact, the study proved that there was a significant vaccination failure rate, despite what the school had reported. This was the reason for the measles outbreak.

Once again, twisting facts to further the agenda, Understand why the world has decided not to accept the twisted agenda and conspirators that have built an ‘alternative’ money making industry while blaming the whole system (multiple systems) of some multi-trillion dollar cover-up.

You are guilty of hiding behind made up facts and made up conclusions, you are misrepresenting the facts and the data.

Being that you posted all these studies, does that mean that you value the results, or only if they support your position?
Is the position of yours based on facts, or you go fact hunting to find facts that will support your position??

Take time to read the studies that you post, otherwise, you are accusing us of being stupid and taking what you post at face value.

The study demonstrates that two doses of the MMR vaccine are necessary for immunity, as 95% of the measles cases had just one dose with some having none.

In fact, only one child had received the second MMR shot, this shows how effective the shot is, this was a large school and only one child with proper vaccination got infected. (below the 95-97% acceptable immunity rate).